2020 (12) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he CIT(A)-14, Mumbai deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,66,43,021/- imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act') in relation to the assessment year 2007-08. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee sold certain land and declared long term capital gain on sale thereof. The AO opined that such .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erently from the one portrayed by the assessee, cannot in our considered opinion be a cause for imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro products 322 ITR 158 (SC) has held that no penalty should be imposed when the assessee adopts a bona fide view and has declared all the necessary particulars concerning the income in dispute. Since the vi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s included some amount spent on minor sons and daughters of the directors. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly relied on ACIT Vs. TRB Exports P. Ltd. 40 SOT 22 (ITAT) Chandigarh at para 5.4 of the impugned order, in which the Tribunal deleted the penalty under similar circumstances. No contrary precedent has been brought on record by the ld. DR. We, therefore, uphold the deletion of penalty. 6. In the res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X